TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether deduction at 40% of incentive bonus was allowable under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether additional conveyance allowance was allowable under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether deduction at 40% of incentive bonus was allowable under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The question was covered by the earlier decision of the Court, which had answered the same controversy against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Conclusion: Deduction at 40% of incentive bonus was not allowable; the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether additional conveyance allowance was allowable under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had allowed Rs. 30,000 as additional conveyance allowance on the basis of the circular relied upon, and that view was upheld as a correct interpretation of section 10(14).
Conclusion: Additional conveyance allowance was restricted to Rs. 30,000 and the assessee's claim beyond that amount was rejected; the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: Both reference questions were answered against the assessee, and the Revenue succeeded on the substantive tax issues.
Ratio Decidendi: Allowance under section 10(14) depends on the statutory limits and the conditions governing the allowance, and a claim beyond the permissible extent cannot be allowed merely on assertion of expenditure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
